Subsidiarity

Certain laws relating to defence, foreign relationships, fiscal management and fiscal accountability should remain established in some form within a writ ten constitutiIon. 

This does in no way imply a withdrawal from the EU. Rather it should be at the heart of a potential constitution that individual members do have individually decided rights but also have responsibilities with regard to e.g. The European convention n Human Rights. That legislation, however defective on times, should be embedded within any potential written constitution but should be able to be tested against core fundamentals of this countries constitution. 

Facilitator's suggested idea:

"Subsidiarity is a key principle embedded in the EU, and the UK commit to respect this principle and how the competence were divided between the EU and Member state.

The UK respect the division of competence organised in the TFEU as follows:

  • exclusive competences (Article 3 of the TFEU): (the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts in these fields. The Member States’ role is therefore limited to applying these acts, unless the Union authorises them to adopt certain acts themselves;)
  • shared competences (Article 4 of the TFEU): (the EU and Member States are authorised to adopt binding acts in these fields. However, Member States may exercise their competence only in so far as the EU has not exercised, or has decided not to exercise, its own competence;)
  • supporting competences (Article 6 of the TFEU): (the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of Member States. Consequently, it has no legislative power in these fields and may not interfere in the exercise of these competences reserved for Member States)

However the UK parliament should remain able to control whether EU legislative and non-legislative acts respect this prinicple of subsidiarity. In this respect, the UK parlimament shall be able to intervene and oppose to any action taken by the EU that does not respect this fundamental principle.

The extent to which the principle of subsidiarity is respected should, when necessary, be tested against core fundamentals of the UK and its own understanding of the competences at stake, particularly when these competencies were at a straining point.

the UK acknowledge the effort made by the EU to give more room to subsidiarity with the "yellow card" system introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon"

 

edited on Apr 18, 2015 by laure roux

laure roux Apr 8, 2015

Deat Gavin could you redraft this idea taking into acount the comment we made. Maybe someting like:

Subsidiarity is a key principle embedded in the EU, and the UK commit to respect this principle and how the competence were divided between the EU and Member state.

the UK respect the division of competence organised in the TFEU as follows:

  • exclusive competences (Article 3 of the TFEU): the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts in these fields. The Member States’ role is therefore limited to applying these acts, unless the Union authorises them to adopt certain acts themselves;
  • shared competences (Article 4 of the TFEU): the EU and Member States are authorised to adopt binding acts in these fields. However, Member States may exercise their competence only in so far as the EU has not exercised, or has decided not to exercise, its own competence;
  • supporting competences (Article 6 of the TFEU): the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of Member States. Consequently, it has no legislative power in these fields and may not interfere in the exercise of these competences reserved for Member States

However the UK parliament should remain able to control, in addition to the CJE, whether subsidiarity is honoured by the EU. If ever subsidiarity was not be respected  by the EU the UK parlimament shall intervene and oppose to any action taken by the EU that does not respect this fundamental principle.

The extent to which the prinicple of subsidiairyt is respected  should be tested against core fundamentals of the UK and its own understanding of the competences at stake.

Would you add something else? I am just trying to reflect the discussion on this idea., tell me what you think and then try and modify your idea accordingly.

Thank you again for your contributions on this platform.

Users tagged:

laure roux Apr 12, 2015

"We have been unable to make contact with the community member who originally submitted this idea and there have been no edits to their submission so far in the refining phase. With only one week remaining this idea has now been taken under the stewardship of the project facilitators for this challenge (the original idea authors are invited to resume ownership of the idea at any point). We will now work to redraft the original submission in line with your comments and suggestions. We will make no substantive contributions to the actual idea content, but instead will seek to clarify and make more concise the original submission. Please do use the comments below to offer suggestions on specific wording and to guide us on which suggestions should take priority (by voting comments up/down)."

 

Rob G Apr 12, 2015

The problem with this is that it surely conflicts with EU law - it argues that Parliament can disagree with a finding of the CJEU regarding EU law, whereas under the Treaties we've signed up to, the CJEU is the final arbiter of EU law.

laure roux Apr 12, 2015

I guess the original author is against this precise point. He wants to see the parliament to be able to check the CJEU in some cases. For the moment what is possible though is the " yellow card system" for legislative procedure. i am going to limit this to legislative and non legislative acts. 

Gavin Russ Apr 12, 2015

Hi Laura,

l sent a quite detailed response in relatiion to the 'compentcies' that you described.  I am curious as to why you might not have received this but maybe I replied in another Key question. I am at loss to understand because I did a fair amount of work on the possible interfaces might be undertaken under the proposed constitutional statement. Please reply. 

laure roux Apr 17, 2015

dear GavinRuss I have not receive any message however I know we discussed during the previous phase when I mentionned the yelow card system for instance. Do you think you could draft a suggested clause in relation to your idea.Indeed I would rather you draft your own clause rather than me writing it as you are the original creator of this idea and I may not have translated your idea properly. This pahse end tomorrow night, do you think you could draft such a clause of modify mine?

Users tagged:

laure roux Apr 17, 2015

This is hte last post I received:

Fascinated with some aspects in relation to full brief. Such 'confusion' again abut Britain's place in Europe. Any proposed constitution would need to define relationships with the EU in terms of primary legislation as enacted within any national parliament but 'aspects' might be 'tested' against any relevent EU legislation? Somehow? Via ECJ might be one way and lacking relevent constituional legal knowledge ... mechanisms might already exist. However, that might be seen as circumvating the commission and the European Parliament. however, a point of negotiation with the EU might whilst including reference to the 'yellow card' system might suggest ways by which relationships might be harmonised And procedures made 'quicker' ?  Due refererence shoul be made in any proposed constitution but I am still at a loss to define mechanisms. Many in Britain might not like the fact that the EU parliament is a duly voted for democratic institution as voted for by citizens Across the Union. The 'horse trading' which seems to occur in relatin to the appointment of EU commissioners and the head of the commission is not endearing! A confusing situation which would need to be defined within any proposed constitution for Britain. 

As laureroux suggests,  'shared' relationship with the EU and 'exclusive' in terms of the British constitution. What be a mechanism if the two were at a 'straining' point? 

Users tagged:

Share